 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rizo4/24/2002
tions about that. The prosecutor confirmed he had made that statement. The prosecutor also stated he did not interview Santoyo regarding the facts of the case when he met with him and did not bring to Santoyo's attention the inconsistencies between his initial testimony and his statements to the police. Rather, he intended to use the police interview transcript to refresh Santoyo's recollection.
The court denied a hearing, ruling that the previous defense cross-examination of Santoyo was adequate to place before the jury the information about the meeting with the prosecutor prior to the change in his testimony. The court also ruled that the probative value of any additional testimony about the matter from counsel for Victor or from the prosecutor would be outweighed by the potential for confusing and misleading the jury. Defendants contend that, in view of Santoyo's importance to the prosecution case, the restriction on their ability to develop and present evidence regarding the change in Santoyo's testimony, to impeach his credibility, was error.
We agree with the trial court that the examination it allowed was adequate to put before the jury the relevant information concerning Santoyo's meeting with the prosecutor and the subsequent change in his testimony. The jury already knew, from the extensive defense cross-examination of Santoyo, that (1) before the meeting, Santoyo said Jesus did not have a gun; (2) the prosecutor then met with Santoyo, took him to lunch, and discussed the case, at least to some extent; and (3) after the meeting, Santoyo changed his testimony and said Jesus had a gun. The inference the defense wanted to draw, that the prosecutor influenced Santoyo to change his testimony, was apparent to the jury.
The additional information that the prosecutor had expressed concern about Santoyo's change in his story did not have significant probative value. It would have been obvious to the jury from the prosecutor's questioning, when he resumed his examination after the recess, that he was trying to get Santoyo to change his testimony to conform to the police interview. Similarly, a hearing with testimony from Victor's counsel and the prosecutor would have added little or nothing. They merely would have confirmed what they already had told the court. Therefore, the court's ruling was not an abuse of discretion and, even if it had been, would not have been prejudicial because admitting the excluded evidence would not have changed the result.
3. Evidence regarding Santoyo's arrest record
At a section 402 hearing, Santoyo testified on cross-examination that he had never been arrested. On redirect, the prosecutor elicited that in fact Santoyo had been arrested in Pomona for a traffic problem sometime after the shooting in this case. Santoyo testified the police released him and told him if he were asked whether he had been taken into custody to say no.
Later, during another section 402 hearing, Santoyo admitted he had been taken to jail a couple months after the shooting in this case, when he was pulled over and the police found a gun in the car. Santoyo testified he was not charged with a crime, and the police had told him to say he had not been arrested if he were asked.
Santoyo further testified he had been taken into custody at an Immigration and Naturalization Service detention center about six months before trial and had been placed in jail for a month on suspicion of being an illegal alien.
Certain defendants requested permission to impeach Santoyo with this information, to show he had lied previously when he testified he had not been arrested. The court denied the request, ruling that the possible
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|